Evaluation of 2004

TRU Media Campaign

Sponsor: The North Carolina Health & Wellness Trust Fund (HWTF)

Media Vendor: CapStrat

Evaluators: University of North Carolina Tobacco Prevention & Evaluation Program (UNC-TPEP)

Background

25% of North Carolina population under age 18

2 million youth

1.4 million in school

750,000 ages 11-17 (target of TRU campaign)

14.3% middle school students use tobacco (9.3% cigarettes)

33.7% high school students use tobacco (27.3% cigarettes)

Sources: 2003 NC Census, 2003 NC Youth Tobacco Survey

Background

NC-HWTF launched a youth-targeted, tobacco prevention, radio campaign called “Tobacco.Reality.Unfiltered.” or “TRU” in 2003 to complement school & community programs to reduce youth tobacco use.

Early evaluation results suggested need for campaign switch to television.

UNC-TPEP produced a report on best practices for youth anti-tobacco media campaigns in late 2003 to guide formation of television advertisements.*

CapStrat used one of the recommended themes, serious health consequencesfrom tobacco use, as the primary basis for the campaign.

The TRU television media campaign launched on TV in April of 2004.

* The report is available at: http://fammed.unc.edu/TPEP/hwtfceval/reports/media_analysis03.pdf

Background

Ads ran April-early Nov. 2004.

Three ads (Anna, Jacobi, Brad) ran April – October.

One ad (Travelogue ) ran in October through early November.

Ads were played more frequently in the Charlotte media market to test the effect of different levels of exposure to thecampaign.

Evaluation: Methodology

Longitudinal telephone survey

Adolescent focus groups

Telephone survey

Time 1: 637 NC youth ; Time 2: 604 NC youth

Longitudinal design (will continue to follow)

Ages 11 to 17

Interviewed before and after campaign

Spring and Fall of 2004

Assessed campaign awareness, comprehension, and reaction

Short-term outcomes of smoking behaviors and intentions,

tobacco-related knowledge and attitudes

Not expected that behaviors or attitudes would change in just 6

months

Telephone Survey

Campaign designed to measure a “dose effect”. Ads

shown more often in Charlotte so can compare results to

rest of state

Minimum dose needed to show effect not well established

Data weighted according to NC demographics; outcomes

can be generalized to entire population of NC youth

Focus Groups

Goals:

to understand how NC youth seeing/interpreting TRU ads

to gain insight on how ads might be improved

14 groups conducted across the state in Nov/Dec 2004,

after end of campaign

Groups of varying age, gender, ethnicity, and smoking

status

~ 140 youth ages 13-17

The full focus group report is available at: http://fammed.unc.edu/TPEP/focus_group_report05.pdf

Telephone Survey Results

Campaign Awareness

2004 TRU media campaign had a moderate reach among NC youth,

11 to 17 years of age, with 45% reporting recall of at least one ad.

Youth in the Charlotte media market reported higher campaign

awareness (52.9%) compared with the rest of the state (41.5%).*

Younger youth reported greater awareness (47.4%) than older youth

(41%).

Non-white youth reported greater awareness (54.8%) than white

youth (40.5%).*

No overall awareness differences between males and females.

* Statistically significant

Individual Ad Awareness

The Anna ad was the most

commonly seen of all the TRU

ads with 29.9% of the youth

reporting confirmed awareness of

that ad in comparison to 19.1%

for Jacobi , 5.2% for Brad, and

5.5% for Travelogue.

Ad Reactions

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Anna Jacobi Brad Travelogue

Ad was convincing

Grabbed my attention

Reasons not to smoke

Talked to friends aboutad

Overall Ad

Awareness:29.9% 19.1% 5.2% 5.5%

Individual Ads

ANNA

Confirmed Awareness 29.9%

Ad was convincing 90.9%

Ad grabbed my attention 88.0%

Gave good reasons not to smoke 98.0%

Talked to friends about ad 15.7%

Individual Ads

TRAVELOGUE

Confirmed Awareness 5.5%

Ad was convincing 97.4%

Ad grabbed my attention 93.5%

Gave good reasons not to smoke 94.3%

Talked to friends about ad 31.6%

Brand/Logo Recognition

0 20 40 60 80 100

TRU*

Tobacco.Reality.Unfiltered.

What's it gonna take?

Time 1

Time 2

Charlotte at Time 2

% of youth that recognized brand/logo

*The TRU brand was not tested in Time 1.

Attitudes Toward Smoking

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

It is safe to smoke for only a

year or two, if you quit after

that.*

Young people who smoke

cigarettes have more friends.

Smoking cigarettes makes

people your age look cool or fit

in.

Smoking is a way to show

others you’re not afraid to take

risks.

Cigarettes are not addictive.*

Time 1

Time 2

% of youth who Strongly Agree/Agree with statement

Attitudes Toward Smoking

0 20 40 60 80 100

Not smoking is a way to

express your

independence.

People who smoke

regularly have a harder

time keeping up in sports

Secondhand smoke, that

is, smoke from other

people’s cigarettes is

harmful to you.*

Time 1

Time 2

% of youth who Strongly Agree/Agree with statement

Participation in Anti-Smoking Activities

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Percentage of youth participating in

anti-tobacco school events*

Percentage of youth participating in

anti-tobacco community events* Overall

11 to 14 yr olds

15 to 17 yr olds

Susceptibility to Smoking

Susceptibility to smoking is a measure of “likelihood to

smoke” based on youth’s responses to several

hypothetical questions:

Do you think you will smoke a cigarette in the next year?

Do you think that you will ever smoke a cigarette in the future?

If one of your best friends offered you a cigarette, would you

smoke it?

Susceptibility to Smoking

Initial results show that youth who were

non-susceptible, non-smokers at Time 1 and

aware of the TRU campaign were less likely

to have experimented with cigarettes at Time

2 than their non-TRU aware counterparts.

Other data on smoking behavior are

inconclusive, as expected at such an early

time in the campaign.

Focus Group Results

Evaluation of the ads that were shown most frequently in the campaign (Anna and Jacobi) was mixed

Focus group youth felt that the Anna ad could have been more effective if:

it had grabbed attention earlier;

it were more emotional when telling the story of the grandmother;

it had featured testimonial from the grandmother in addition to Anna; and

it had shown graphic images of the health consequences suffered by Anna’s grandmother.

Focus Group Results

The last ad produced for the campaign, Travelogue,

demonstrated a clear preference as the favorite ad by

the majority of youth in 13 of 14 groups.

Focus Group Results

The reasons youth gave for choosing Travelogue

included three major elements emphasized by groups as

effective or memorable.

graphic display of serious health consequences of smoking,

which elicited strong reactions/emotions;

the featured individuals telling stories about their own

experiences, rather than those of a friend or family member; and

a diversity (ethnic, gender, and age) of people.

I. Conclusions: Campaign Design

A. Continuation of an evidence-based mass media

campaign to reduce youth consumption of tobacco

products must be a high priority in NC.

B. The media campaign should maintain a continuous

(year-round) presence on television and in community

activities with NC youth.

II. Conclusions: Campaign

Awareness

A. The 2004 TRU/Tobacco.Reality.Unfiltered. campaign

reached approximately 4.5 out of every 10 youth or an

estimated 359,000 NC youth.

B. The campaign reached diverse youth (males and females,

whites and non-whites, younger and older youth).

C. Awareness of campaign slogan and brand increased

substantially over the last two years. The brand Tobacco.

Reality. Unfiltered. is now recognized by an estimated

439,000 NC youth.

III. Conclusions: Campaign Impact

A. NC youth appear to be forming stronger attitudes against cigarette use and exposure to secondhand smoke. Stronger attitudes may relate to future declines in youth tobacco use.

B. Differences between the level of TRU-aware and non-TRU aware youth’s experimentation with cigarettes suggest that the campaign protected an estimated 9,000 youth from smoking.* Extrapolating the proportion of these youth who would have become established smokers predicts health care cost savings of 3.8 million dollars in NC.

* This relationship holds true only for youth who were non-susceptible to smoking at baseline.

IV. Conclusions: Future Campaign

A. Future campaigns should use the higher GRP (Gross Rating Points) intensity, at a minimum, of the Charlotte area statewide. If the GRP for the Charlotte area were done statewide, the media campaign would have reached an additional 68,600 youth.

B. A goal of at least 80% confirmed campaign awareness should be sought in the coming years. To reach this goal, it will be necessary to significantly expand campaign resources.

IV. Conclusions: Future Campaign

C. The next media campaign should note that the last

advertisement in the TRU campaign, Travelogue, was

rated most highly and appears to incorporate many

essential elements of a strong, evidence-based

advertisement.

D. Continuous monitoring and improvement of the HWTF

media campaign will occur with the current evaluation

design.

UNC Tobacco Prevention & Evaluation Program

CB 7595, Manning Drive, UNC School of Medicine

Department of Family Medicine

Chapel Hill, NC 27599

T: 919-843-9751; F: 919-966-9435

Web: http://fammed.unc.edu/TPEP/

Email: tpep@med.unc.edu